Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §13.1.7.pr-13.1.7.2

Independence of Condictio Furtiva and Liability of Heirs

Passage 2055 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpianus explains that a compromise regarding theft does not block the condictio, that the action for theft and the condictio do not consume each other, and that the condictio for a stolen thing, aiming at recovery, remains available against the thief's heirs and other successors.

[IDEM libro quadragensimo secundo ad Sabinum. ] §13.1.7.prSi pro fure damnum decisum sit, condictionem non impediri uerissimum est: decisione enim furti quidem actio, non autem condictio tollitur.
[THE SAME, in his forty-second book on Sabinus.] If a compromise has been made on behalf of the thief concerning the damage, it is most true that the condictio is not barred; for by a compromise, indeed, the action for theft is extinguished, but not the condictio.
§13.1.7.1Furti actio poenam petit legitimam, condictio rem ipsam.
The action for theft seeks a statutory penalty, while the condictio seeks the thing itself.
ea res facit, ut neque furti actio per condictionem neque condictio per furti actionem consumatur.
This fact brings it about that neither is the action for theft consumed by the condictio, nor is the condictio consumed by the action for theft.
is itaque, cui furtum factum est, habet actionem furti et condictionem et uindicationem, habet et ad exhibendum actionem.
Therefore, he from whom a theft has been committed has the action for theft, the condictio, and the claim for recovery, and he also has the action for production.
§13.1.7.2Condictio rei furtiuae, quia rei habet persecutionem, heredem quoque furis obligat, nec tantum si uiuat seruus furtiuus, sed etiam si decesserit: sed et si apud furis heredem diem suum obiit seruus furtiuus uel non apud ipsum, post mortem tamen furis, dicendum est condictionem aduersus heredem durare.
The condictio for a stolen thing, because it involves the recovery of the property, also binds the heir of the thief; and not only if the stolen slave is alive, but also if he has died. But even if the stolen slave ended his days while in the possession of the thief's heir, or not in his possession but yet after the death of the thief, it must be said that the condictio against the heir continues to exist.
quae in herede diximus, eadem erunt et in ceteris successoribus.
What we have said regarding the heir will also apply to all other successors.

Notes

  1. §13.1.7.prpro fure damnum decisum sit — The preposition "pro" here means "on behalf of" or "for the benefit of," encompassing cases where not only the thief themselves but also a third party makes a compromise with the victim for the thief's benefit.
  2. §13.1.7.1ea res facit, ut — The phrase "ea res" refers to the preceding sentence about the different natures of the claims (penalty vs. the thing itself). "Facit ut" is an idiomatic construction meaning "brings it about that" or "results in," introducing a consecutive clause with the subjunctive verb "consumatur."
  3. §13.1.7.2quia rei habet persecutionem — Although "condictio" is generally an action in personam, the "condictio" for a stolen thing (condictio ex causa furtiva) exceptionally aims at the recovery of the property itself ("rei persecutio"). This recovery-oriented nature is the reason why the obligation is transmitted to the thief's heir, regardless of whether the heir currently holds the stolen property or has derived any enrichment from it.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §13.1.7.pr-13.1.7.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:13.1.7.pr-13.1.7.2

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.